صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

LECTURE XXIV.

"THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE;

AND THE RESUR

RECTION OF DAMNATION."

JOHN v. 29, 29.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.

THOUGH I have once spoken on these words in this place, and likewise been induced to explain them in a controversy that was published, it is still requested by some of the readers of these lectures that this passage should be noticed before the volume is completed. And as the common use of this text is in opposition to the doctrine set forth in these sermons, and especially to the use we made of the scriptures in our last, it is thought necessary that a discourse on this subject should be placed next in order.

This passage is one of a number which the popular doctrine of the church has applied to a future state of condemnation and misery. It has been used to set forth and maintain that those who do good in this world will be raised from the dead hereafter and be justified unto life in an immortal constitution, for the good works which they did in this world; and that those who do evil in this mortal state will be raised, at the same time, into an immortal constitution, and condemned to everlasting misery for the evil they did in this mortal constitution.

In the first place we shall suggest some arguments against the doctrine, for the support of which this text has been used.

In this doctrine there is a manifest want of that due

connexion between cause and effect, which is so wonderfully displayed in the natural order of things. While we are here in the body, if we feed on wholesome and nourishing food the natural effects are strength and health of body; but if we, from whatever cause, feed on that which is unwholesome or poisonous, the consequences are the reverse of the former, and sickness and weakness are sure to follow. But it would be evidently absurd to attempt to argue, on physical principles, that these effects, either health or sickness, strength or weakness will be experienced in a state of immortality after this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality. Now it is plain from the scriptures, that all sin, all wickedness, and all evil doings are the works of the flesh; and there appears no more reason for supposing that the effects of these works are to extend into the immortal state, than for supposing that the effects of wholesome or unwholesome food are to extend to that state.

If one sow grain in a field in New-England, it follows of natural consequence that the harvest will be gathered from the same field; but there appears no natural connexion, as between cause and effect, between sowing grain in this country and gathering a harvest from it in Europe. St. Paul says; "He that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption." This seems perfectly natural, because "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." But to argue that corruption may be gathered from an incorrutible state is to argue against the very nature of things.

The apostle to the Romans is explicit on this subject, where he says; "There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit."

By this it is evident that condemnation cannot exist any longer than men walk after the flesh. But none pretend that any of the human family will walk after the flesh in that incorruptible state of which the apostle speaks, where he says; "This corruptible shall put

on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality."

We can easily discern the natural connexion between all the vices which are practised by men, and the infelicities which these vices introduce into society, and the unhappiness they occasion to those who practise them; but it is totally impossible to trace the connexion between these vices and a state of permanent misery in an immortal stat.

Secondly; as this opinion of a state of immortal happiness for the good works of men in this life, and a state of endless misery for their evil works while here is supposed to fall under the notice of those scriptures which teach us that God will render to every man according to his works, it seems proper that we look to see if we can find such a proportion between the virtues which are practised in this life and a state of immortal felicity, and between the vices committed here and a state of endless torment as will justify this doctrine. The moment this inquiry is proposed the absurdity of the doctrine appears; for there is a much nearer proportion between the labor of one hour and the wealth of the whole world as its reward, than can be seen between all the good works which a man could perform during a long life, and a recompense of an immortal state of complete happiness. Nor is there so great a proportion between all the sins which one could possibly commit in this life and the recompense of a state of endless misery, as between the smallest offence ever committed on earth and a retaliation of the most severe and protracted tortures which could be inflicted in this mortal state. These statements are self-evident facts, which we know to be true as well as we know that a day is not as long as a year, or that one grain is not equal to a ton weight.

According to the scriptures, we are authorised to believe, that the blessings of the gospel in this life are far too great to be considered as being according to our works. St. Paul says; "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace

which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.". Again the same author says; "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." Now if the salvation obtained in this life by the grace of God is too great to be considered according to our works, there surely is not the shadow of propriety in supposing that a state of permanent felicity in the eternal world is according to our works in this. But the proportion between our good works in this world and a state of endless happiness in the next is as near as between our sins here and a state of endless misery hereafter.

Thirdly; this doctrine of endless rewards and punishments is involved in an insuperable difficulty for the want of the power to distinguish between the meet subjects for these respective rewards.

What will this doctrine do, for instance, with David, king of Israel? That he did evil, and that to a most heinous degree is evident from the faithful records of scripture. Now if they who in this life have done evil are to be raised into an immortal state of misery, David, king of Israel, will be thus raised to condemna tion. Will it be said that David became a good man, and did many good things after he committed the abominations which are recorded of him? This we are happy to acknowledge; but what does this prove, only that David was like other men, and and sometimes did that which was right and sometimes that which was wrong? For another instance, where will the doctrine under consideration place St. Paul in the eternal state? That he did evil in this world the scriptures as fully prove as they prove any thing. But it will be said that this man was reformed and became a good man; this too we are happy to acknowledge, but what more does this prove than that St. Paul was like David, and like other men, a changeable creature! sometimes did right, at other times wrong? The fact is, as was fully shown in our lecture on the recompensing of the righteous and the wicked in the earth, all men are in some degree righteous and in some degree wicked. And it follows that if all that do good

who

in this world are to be eternally happy hereafter, all mankind will be happy; and on the other hand, if all who do evil in this life are to be endlessly miserable in the next, all men will be thus miserable!

Fourthly; the doctrine under consideration is absurd in that it supposes that the good works and virtues of men in this imperfect state are more meritorious than the perfect and permanent virtue which will characterize the blessed in heaven; for if that immortal state of holiness and felicity is merited by the virtue imperfectly practised in this mortal state, there remains no merit in the virtues practised in the future world, nor any reward for that superior degree of righteousness. And on the other hand, this doctrine involves another absurdity, in that it recompenses the sins of this life with a state of endless and positive misery, but reserves no punishment for the sins of which the souls of the miserable will be guilty in that state where they will sin without restraint. Why should imperfect righteousness merit an eternity of happiness, and yet perfect righteousness merit nothing? Why should the sins of this life be recompensed with a state of everlasting or eternal misery, and the entire sin of the eternal world go forever unpunished?

Once more; this doctrine maintains that God will punish his rational offspring without mercy, without designing their reconciliation or profit. This, of all the objections which we have to the doctrine under consideration is the greatest. This supposes that God possesses a worse disposition, and practises greater cruelty than the wicked possessor practice. All the cruelties of heathen idolatry are tender mercies, in comparison with the cruelty attributed to our heavenly Father by this doctrine. People are deceived by the names which superstition uses to identify this cruelty in God, but the name of a thing alters not its nature. Vindictive wrath, holy anger, retributive justice, are terms used to designate a property of the divine nature which, when examined impartially, and without a superstitious awe, is found to be worthy of no better name than unmerciful malevolence! To attribute such a quality or char

« السابقةمتابعة »